Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Strumpets unlocking the gate

Over the course of the last month, Reuters-Ipsos has polled Americans (n = 9,397) on whether they approve or disapprove of Trump's handling of immigration. Discounting the "don't know" responses shows a slight majority, 52%-48%, approving to some degree.

That top line nearly even split disguises significant demographic differences. Whites approve 59%-41% overall. It will come as little surprise that most non-whites do not. They disapprove of Trump's immigration approach 69%-31%.

Among whites, there is a now familiar marital and gender dynamic at play. The following graph shows the percentages who disapprove subtracted from the percentages who approve among married and unmarried white men and women and among all non-whites:

With regards to whites we must once again ask which of these things is not like the others?

The distribution for single white women is 34% approve, 66% disapprove, about the same as for non-whites. Among married white men and women and single white men, it is 65% approve, 35% disapprove.

The woman featuring here disapproves. Her unfortunate son, in contrast--if he survives to adulthood--will approve with a zeal so intense it would make the Spartans at Thermopylae blush.

Z-Man's recent observation seems applicable:
She really meant every word of the nonsense she was saying. That or she was sexually aroused by it. Who knows, maybe the thought of being slaughtered by Muslim savages is arousing to these people. It’s not entirely out of the question, given the state of men these days.
If you haven't already, see Heartiste's characteristically trenchant discussion of white America's major fault line. His rhetorical krav maga is something those who crave #MAGA need more of.

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Nothing worse than an old white guy

As a closing follow up to the previous post, here is the very first image returned for a search on "racist":

Here are the top results on "hate":

There are no victims, only volunteers. This is what we're up against. Do not ever forget it.

Monday, March 27, 2017

Getty Images gets after white men

I'm doing a little work on a textbook. The publisher has free access to, a service I hadn't previously heard of but provides images similar to the Shutterstock pictures you've probably seen included in various online articles and the like.

I was looking for an image of a shoplifter for one of the modules I was finishing up. On the first page of results, containing 59 images, I noticed not a single perpetrator was black. I went through the other four pages of results, all of which were similarly completely devoid of black perps. I literally found a thieving pig before I was able to find a black filcher!

Part of the Mythril Crime Syndicate
I scanned the first page of results, around 60 per, for other criminal search terms. Some images only showed victims or no people at all. Among those that did include perpetrators, the percentage distributions are as follows.

For "shoplifting":

White male -- 42%
White female -- 56%
Asian female -- 2%

For "rapist":

White male -- 100%

For "assault":

White male -- 88%
White female -- 12%

For "burglar":

White male -- 100%

For "robbery":

White male -- 91%
White female -- 6%
Asian male -- 3%

For "terrorist":

White male -- 53%
Arab/MENA male -- 47%

Not a single result from any of these searches returned a black or Hispanic perp. This despite the fact that non-Asian minorities are drastically overrepresented among criminals in the US.

When I tried "black burglar", just two of the 60 images contained black male perps--the vast majority of the rest were white men!

This service is a major content provider for academic publishing and it is thoroughly anti-white.

Whenever the thought crosses my mind that I may becoming too cynical, something like this comes along to knock some sense into me by reminding me that I'm not cynical enough.

Sunday, March 26, 2017

Marriage and gender gaps in presidential elections since 1968

Steve Sailer has been pointing out since at least the 2004 presidential election that the marriage gap is a bigger deal than the much more media salient gender gap. The GSS reveals that Steve's perspicacity has been descriptive extending much farther back than that, since at least 1968.

Parenthetically, this is often the case with Steve's insights. He's portrayed as an extremist by all the usual suspects even though his observations tend to be quite modest and parsimonious given the data--both quantitative and qualitative--he bases those observations on.

The following graph shows the marriage and gender gaps, in black and red respectively, by presidential election. The marriage gap values are computed by taking the Republican candidate's performance in a two-way race among unmarried voters and subtracting it from his performance among married voters. The gender gap values are computed by taking the Republican candidate's performance in a two-way race among female voters and subtracting it from his performance among male voters:

The GSS asks about each presidential election for no more than seven years--three or four survey iterations, as they're conducted every couple of years on average--after that election occurs. So the 1988 election between the elder Bush and Dukakis gets a question in 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1993. Since these responses are being cross-referenced with marital status at the time of survey participation, there's going to be a little noise in the marital status figures. Someone responding in 1993, who may have been single when he voted for Dukakis in 1988 but who married in the interim, will show up as a married who voted Democrat even though he was unmarried when he actually voted.

This will modestly understate the real size of the marriage gap in each election while leaving the gender gap untouched (excepting the handful of trannies who may be hiding in the data sets!). Consequently, the difference in magnitude between the marriage gap and the gender gap is modestly greater than what is depicted in the graph above.

We can thus confidently conclude that in every US presidential election going back to at least Humphrey and Nixon in 1968 the marriage gap has been wider than the gender gap has been.

GSS variables used: PRES68(1-2), PRES72(1-2), PRES76(1-2), PRES80(1-2), PRES84(1-2), PRES88(1-2), PRES92(1-2), PRES96(1-2), PRES00(1-2), PRES04(1-2), PRES08(1-2), PRES12(1-2), MARITAL(1)(3-5), SEX

Saturday, March 25, 2017

A couple more polling stragglers

- Multiple people have balked at Trump's apparent Mormon support. This comment at Heartiste's is illustrative:
45.5% of Utahns voted for Trump, but you’re claiming that 72% of Mormons voted for Trump? Sorry, but those results don’t line up. There’s definitely some sampling error in there.
Keep in mind the results were in the context of a two-way race. Evan McMullin, the Mormon who was futilely pushed by cuckservatives in a ridiculously far-fetched attempt to send the election to the House of representatives, sucked up a lot of Mormon support. He got 21.5% of the vote in Utah. If we back this out and just compare Trump vs Hillary, we see that Trump crushed her, 62.4%-37.6%.

One-third of Utah's population isn't Mormon. Given that Mormons are the most reliably Republican demographic in the country, it's probably reasonable to assume that Utah's non-Mormon population was less likely to vote for Trump than its Mormons were. If we estimate non-Mormons in Utah went 50/50 for Trump/Hillary, we get a Mormon Utahan result of 68.6%-31.4% in Trump's favor, close to the Reuters-Ipsos result of 71.6%-28.4% among Mormons nationwide.

While Utah is majority-Mormon, the majority of America's Mormons do not live in Utah. Of the 6.5 million Mormons in the US, 2 million live in Utah. Since most McMullin voters, if forced to choose between Trump and Hillary likely would have gone with Trump, it's reasonable to assume that relative to Mormons in Utah, non-Utahan Mormons in states where McMullin wasn't on the the ballot--like California, which has the second-largest population of Mormons in the country after Utah--were more likely to vote for Trump than for Hillary.

So if Mormons outside of Utah went for Trump 73%-27% in a two-way contest with Hillary--which seems quite plausible--we'd be exactly in line with the R-I result.

- Similarly, there have been assertions that the marriage gap is actually just a disguised age gap. Again, from a commenter at Heartiste's:
If you had broken all your groups down by age, you’d find that young white women are more likely to be single and that single white manginas who voted for thecunt were…young!
Age is positively correlated with the likelihood of being married, but the marriage gap is present within age cohorts (at least among women). Among whites under 35, Trump's support among whites breaks down as follows:

Young single white men were marginally more supportive of Trump than young married white men were, though the difference is within the margin of error. The difference between young single and young married white women, however, is yuge.

Now let's look at whites aged 35-65 (beyond 65 we start running into widow confounding):

Here, too, the marriage gap is more of a chasm among women.

We might want to refine our focus on the marriage gap to an emphasis on the female marriage gap in particular.

Note too that age isn't much of a factor here. Younger and older single white women vote pretty much the same, as do younger and older married white women, etc. Among whites, it's mostly single women on one side and everyone else on the other.